2016 (8) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as filed Cross Objection against the very same order of the CIT(Appeals) for the assessment year 2007-08. These appeals and the CO were heard together and they are disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in providing IT enable services and filed its return of income for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 on 30.10.07, 27.09.2008 and 24.9.2010 respectively declaring Nil income for all the three assessment years. Initially the returns were processed u/s. 143(1) and then selected for scrutiny. In the assessments concluded u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide orders dated 31.10.09, 20.12.10 and 30.12.12, the total income has been determined at Nil for the AY 2007-08, for the AY 2008-09 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT v. Yokogawa India Ltd., 341 ITR 389 (Kar). The CIT(A) further held that the ruling is applicable with equal force in respect of set off of unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, the CIT(A) directed the AO to work out the deduction u/s. 10B of the Act before set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. 7. As regards the deduction of incidental expenses from total turnover, the CIT(Appeals) relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. v. ACIT, 349 ITR 98 wherein it has been held that where certain expenses are excluded from the export turnover for the purpose of calculating deduction admissible under the Act, such expenses should also be excluded from the total turnover, as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mentioned above." 9. The assessee has filed the cross objections in CO No.4/Bang/2016 which is merely supportive of the order of the CIT(Appeals). 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record and also considered the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that relief u/s. 10A of the Act is to be computed prior to giving effect to carry forward and set off provisions of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court in paras 10 to 20 of its judgment dealt with this issue and noticed that section 10A(1) of the Act is in pari materia with section 10B of the Act. Hence, we are convinced that the CIT(Appeals) was right in his decision and his order does n....